Iowa Education Leader #11 * April 18, 2003
A policy and advocacy update from the Iowa Department of Education * Ted Stilwill, Director

NCLB Application Update - Rumor Control

We still await approval of our NCLB compliance application, which was filed with the United States Department of Education in January. We completed our site visit in March, and have had several follow-up discussions with USDE about various aspects of our application. Many of those conversations have focused on our student testing proposals, and we are encouraged that our open dialogue has helped build a much stronger mutual appreciation for each of our goals. Although a quicker approval process would bring some relief, we recognize from the experience of other states that this is a long process. It has been very helpful to have the active support of our Congressional delegation, the Governor and Lt. Governor, and teachers and administrators across the state. The State Board of Education is on record through a formal position statement as well (http://www.state.ia.us/educate/stateboard/pos_state.html). To date, 11 state NCLB applications have received USDE approval.

Education Quality vs. Revenue Shortfalls

Iowa's quality education system, founded on community pride and strengthened by generations of local and state investments, is this state's best asset for the future. We know good schools, strong businesses and quality of life go hand-in-hand for cities and towns of all sizes. No other state can match the potential of our system of K-12 education, community colleges and universities.

Continued revenue shortfalls have caused dramatically increased tuition at community colleges and Regent's Universities, as well as diminished program opportunities. School districts are beginning to make reductions that more directly affect instructional programs. Increases in class sizes are now quite common, even at the elementary level. Cutbacks in textbooks, counseling, library media services, vocational programs, fine arts and other electives are now coming into the conversation. Programs for kids who need more intensive help after school, during the summer or in other alternative settings are also being reduced. Professional development is being curtailed because of fewer funds in Phase III and because of the need to reduce costs for substitute teachers.

In addition to the potential erosion in opportunities caused by the shortfalls, policymakers are also looking at more systemic types of changes to achieve more dramatic reductions in selected areas. Some of these projects are in areas like child welfare provider changes, charging rent to government agencies and institutions, and changes in funding and flexibility. Some of the areas that have been discussed have been those recommended by a consulting firm, but a longer list of savings projects is expected to emerge from the legislature next week.

Although it was not recommended by the consultant and there is no bill language at this point, one proposal being heavily discussed is a severe reduction in AEA funding and the restructuring of and potential dismantling of Iowa's AEA services. In the nearly 30 years that AEAs have existed, they have developed into an integral part of Iowa's educational network, serving as regional hubs for services such as curriculum development, special education, media and technology services, school and community planning, professional development and leadership training. They are nationally recognized and respected as a model for other states seeking to improve their educational systems.

As I wrote previously, discussions about dismantling the AEA system have been going on among various groups of lawmakers for the past month or so. Today, the most recent plan seems to include:

• Taking $10 million from the current year's (FY03) reserves.
• Reducing FY04 funding an additional $10 million.
• Continuing discussions of replacing current services with a fee-for-service system, giving districts full responsibility for providing services, and the option of obtaining them from the provider of their choice.
• These actions are in addition to the $7.5 million budget reductions made to AEAs in fiscal years 02 and 03. AEAs were also subject to the November 2001 across-the-board cut of 4.3% or $3.4 million.

Legislators rationalize these reductions and fee-for-service proposals with several inaccurate assumptions, primarily, that AEA reserves are too high.

• In fact, AEAs' fiscal 2001-02 unspent balances across all funds were a combined $38.5 million out of an overall budget of $318.1 million.
• In fact, AEAs' fiscal 2001-02 unreserved general fund balances were a combined $28.5 million out of an overall general fund budget of $233.5 million, or approximately 12%.
• In fact, AEAs have no ability to levy for special circumstances such as litigation and capitol expenses, so reserve funds should arguably be greater in AEAs than in school districts.
• Targeting AEA reserve funds and taking them at will also sets a serious precedent in terms of usurping local authority. At what point will it also become okay to arbitrarily raid other local funds belonging to school districts, community colleges, and counties?

Arbitrary, in fact, could define the whole fee-for-service notion. No data exists to support that students or teachers would benefit from such a system, or that they even want it. In fact, in the annual customer satisfaction survey conducted last year by the DE, 89% of local educators reported they were satisfied or more than satisfied with both the quality of service and the responsiveness of AEAs to meet local needs in a timely manner. As such, AEAs are fulfilling the equity and efficiency goals outlined when legislators began the system in 1974.

AEAs also have followed an accreditation process for the past six years, a quality-control measure that assures they are accountable for high standards with meaningful results in improved student learning and teacher instruction.

Dismantling the AEA service system is one clear example of a wholesale systemic shift that most certainly will negatively impact our quality education. Especially now, when every aspect of education is striving to meet new demands, we absolutely need the involvement of every local, regional and state educational partner to work together. Without the regional portion of that network, we will begin failing our children.

Our high expectations for students and our ability to also set high standards for continual improvement and ever increasing sophistication in educational practice are the foundation for our educational success as a state. We quite simply are doing some things that many other states are not. Our AEAs for example, are envied by most other states as an asset to support school improvement.

Meanwhile, parents, colleges and businesses will continue to increase their demands and expectations on schools and teachers - demanding that they be all things to all students, teach relevant knowledge and skills, graduate nearly everyone, and guarantee they all are ready for success in life beyond high school.

Because of our community pride and generations of support, our schools have been able to meet or exceed those ever-increasing demands. But today our capacity to support students is diminished. Systemic changes such as the ones being discussed mean much more than a short-term impact on a single program or extracurricular activity; they signal the erosion of a quality system, putting our kids and their future - indeed, the future of Iowa - at great risk.

Iowa Education Leader will be distributed periodically from Iowa Department of Education Director Ted Stilwill. To send comments or receive a faxed copy, please contact editor Kathi Slaughter, 515/281-5651, kathi.slaughter@ed.state.ia.us.

###